4 ms·

> A growing chorus of scientists and philosophers argue that free will does not exist. This isn't _new_, this "chorus" has existed for so long that it used to

by dlkf 5y ago

> A growing chorus of scientists and philosophers argue that free will does not exist. This isn't _new_, this "chorus" has existed for so long that it used to be referred to exclusively as a "khoros." Secondly, it's totally embarrassing that the matter isn't considered settled. The standard argument against free will is sound. The closest thing to an objection you'll see is people moving the goalposts so far that we are talking about something else.

senectus1 5y ago
> The standard argument against free will is sound. I must have missed that memo :-P
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  The universe has planted a few sceptics to liven things up.
- danbruc 5y ago
  Just try to define what free will actually means and see things fall apart. The entire idea of free will makes no sense to begin with if one thinks clearly about it.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    I suspect you're wrong. But you made the claim, could you supply some of this "clear thinking"?
    - nefitty 5y ago
      If all events have causes, then nothing can happen spontaneously. A “will” in that world can’t be “free” or disconnected from the causal chain. If there are events that don’t have causes, either they are random, or we need to introduce an unfalsifiable explanation. In a random world, a “will” is still constrained by rolls of the dice. It does not express itself. It is not “free”. If we introduce a metaphysical explanation, then it is no longer science, and can properly be discarded as “nonsense” in the context of the project of inquiry into the physical world. In its company we find concepts like souls, ghosts, deities, magic, etc.
- PinkPigeon 5y ago
  Same here! I had a lot of fun with this lecture series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftIllWczf5w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftIllWczf5w
jakobnissen 5y ago
The debate between "no free will" and "magical supernatural free will" is silly and pointless, and yes, it should have been settled long time ago. But it bugs me that so many people are eager so claim that because magical free will doesn't exist, that means no free will can exist. Compatibilism is not a new idea either. The usual argument is that compatibilists are moving the goal posts, but I simply don't understand that argument. Suppose an argument between two sided: "Bigfoot exists" versus "no non-human apes exists". Is it moving the goalposts to point to gorillas? Or suppose we're in the 1700's, and people are discussing vitalism: The force that separates dead things from living. The two sides debate whether the "vital spark" exists, or whether life is an illusion and it's meaningless to talk about living things at all. Is it moving the goal posts to try to find a non-magical definition of life? To me it's pretty clear that we have free will, and that has nothing to do with determinism.
- loopz 5y ago
  It's like saying higher frames of references can't exist, so they don't exist. The logic fails to prove or disprove unknowns. Virus don't contemplate their hosts. Mature minds handle unknowns properly.
  - AstralStorm 5y ago
    However, is properly exactly the same as deterministically? Injecting non-determinism makes the question of free will rather funny, in that the standard argument "you would not choose differently" does not work as the act of traveling back in time injects further nondeterministic results... Under non-determinism, free will would be something like changing location of probability wells for actions. Our brains do that structurally and chemically all the time, and not particularly deterministically either. (Chemistry is involved.) On the other hand, posing free will as decision theoretic choice, you're facing an outcome of statistical masses of decisions a lot of which are not observable. Philosophically simplifying it to binary choice ends up with absurd results.
    - loopz 5y ago
JI00912 5y ago
Settled? We don't even understand what 'will' is because we don't understand what it means to think. We haven't began answering the question because we don't know where to start.
stubish 5y ago
I think it is the other way around. Taking the standard meaning of free will, you have to add the caveat 'where the choice is not determined by past events'. Anyway, you are free to chose your definition (and I bet I can predict what yours will be).
- loopz 5y ago
  All actions are in the chain of events of prior actions. Humans knowing what future actions might look like, decide to counteract believed future actions. It is basic to sentient life. Such actions may break the illusion of karma, by employing dharma, which is divine, from a higher frame of reference. The absolutists are going to explode.

by dlkf 5y ago

senectus1 5y ago

> The standard argument against free will is sound. I must have missed that memo :-P

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
The universe has planted a few sceptics to liven things up.
danbruc 5y ago
Just try to define what free will actually means and see things fall apart. The entire idea of free will makes no sense to begin with if one thinks clearly about it.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  I suspect you're wrong. But you made the claim, could you supply some of this "clear thinking"?
  - nefitty 5y ago
    If all events have causes, then nothing can happen spontaneously. A “will” in that world can’t be “free” or disconnected from the causal chain. If there are events that don’t have causes, either they are random, or we need to introduce an unfalsifiable explanation. In a random world, a “will” is still constrained by rolls of the dice. It does not express itself. It is not “free”. If we introduce a metaphysical explanation, then it is no longer science, and can properly be discarded as “nonsense” in the context of the project of inquiry into the physical world. In its company we find concepts like souls, ghosts, deities, magic, etc.
PinkPigeon 5y ago
Same here! I had a lot of fun with this lecture series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftIllWczf5w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftIllWczf5w

jakobnissen 5y ago

The debate between "no free will" and "magical supernatural free will" is silly and pointless, and yes, it should have been settled long time ago. But it bugs me that so many people are eager so claim that because magical free will doesn't exist, that means no free will can exist. Compatibilism is not a new idea either. The usual argument is that compatibilists are moving the goal posts, but I simply don't understand that argument. Suppose an argument between two sided: "Bigfoot exists" versus "no non-human apes exists". Is it moving the goalposts to point to gorillas? Or suppose we're in the 1700's, and people are discussing vitalism: The force that separates dead things from living. The two sides debate whether the "vital spark" exists, or whether life is an illusion and it's meaningless to talk about living things at all. Is it moving the goal posts to try to find a non-magical definition of life? To me it's pretty clear that we have free will, and that has nothing to do with determinism.

loopz 5y ago
It's like saying higher frames of references can't exist, so they don't exist. The logic fails to prove or disprove unknowns. Virus don't contemplate their hosts. Mature minds handle unknowns properly.
- AstralStorm 5y ago
  However, is properly exactly the same as deterministically? Injecting non-determinism makes the question of free will rather funny, in that the standard argument "you would not choose differently" does not work as the act of traveling back in time injects further nondeterministic results... Under non-determinism, free will would be something like changing location of probability wells for actions. Our brains do that structurally and chemically all the time, and not particularly deterministically either. (Chemistry is involved.) On the other hand, posing free will as decision theoretic choice, you're facing an outcome of statistical masses of decisions a lot of which are not observable. Philosophically simplifying it to binary choice ends up with absurd results.
  - loopz 5y ago

JI00912 5y ago

Settled? We don't even understand what 'will' is because we don't understand what it means to think. We haven't began answering the question because we don't know where to start.

stubish 5y ago

I think it is the other way around. Taking the standard meaning of free will, you have to add the caveat 'where the choice is not determined by past events'. Anyway, you are free to chose your definition (and I bet I can predict what yours will be).

loopz 5y ago
All actions are in the chain of events of prior actions. Humans knowing what future actions might look like, decide to counteract believed future actions. It is basic to sentient life. Such actions may break the illusion of karma, by employing dharma, which is divine, from a higher frame of reference. The absolutists are going to explode.